[threatofrain]

When the police and justice system collects information about clothing, sexual history with defendant, alcohol and other drugs, they do so because these are legally relevant facts to establishing a narrative that's otherwise often too lacking in material basis.

The police and justice system wish to know these facts so they know the strength of some legal narrative and what counternarratives can be supported. Wearing sexy clothing fits a narrative of consensual sex. Sexual injuries fits a narrative of sexual assault. Drug use damages the credibility of any party. Prior relationship with defendant can fit narratives about the likelihood that someone might agree to sex.

These are facts that defense will ask, and it's best for the prosecution that the police ask first on their terms to control the progression of fact discovery, as opposed to letting the defense ask first on their terms.

Why not be interested in what the man was wearing? Maybe because the prosecution, in anticipation of defense strategy, thinks it won't matter. The job of the police is not to act as a neutral 3rd party to the justice system, proportionally investigating claims on the strength of their merits. The secondary job of the police is to set up cases for the prosecution, even if it's unfair to the defense. The primary job of the police, and any agency, is to establish its own credibility, robustness, and scope as an agency. Note that I am speaking descriptively, not prescriptively.

[DanBC]

> Drug use damages the credibility of any party.

I agree that victims are often doubted because of drug use. (I think that's an error by police; instead of doubting the victim they should be treating the victim as a vulnerable person who was more likely to be abused)

But can you show me any examples where a rapist who claimed he had consent was doubted because he had been using drugs?

It feels as if the doubt only goes one way.

[threatofrain]

It's not an error by police to ask about drug use, because it's the police's job to control fact discovery while setting up a case for the prosecution. The prosecution cares about drug use because they're trying to evaluate the strength of defense narratives.

Imagine a situation where the government doesn't ask first, and instead defense asks first on their terms. That's incompetent.

[shasta]

Isn't that mostly because of the legal process? When a guy is accused of rape, he's the one on trial. Mentioning his drug use might be excluded as prejudicial, even though the jury might find it relevant.

[panic]

And this is exactly why people don't go to the police!